3 ms·
Your comment implies the US is somehow bound to this agreement for the making of federal laws. This is not the case and never has been.
by 33955985 4y ago
Your comment implies the US is somehow bound to this agreement for the making of federal laws. This is not the case and never has been.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoI do not inderstand what you are arguing against. Are you saying US is not a signatory to the convention? Are you saying that US is not bound by international agreements, treaties and contracts that it has signed up to, of it's own accord? Are you saying that US can leave the agreement at any time? (I beleive it can) Or are you saying that is US breaks the obligations it signed up to, the UN cannot hold it accountable?
- 33955985 4y agoThe US is a signatory, but there is nothing in US law that makes being a signatory binding for the creation, amendment, or repeal of any US law. In fact, the opposite is true: the US explicitly maintains sovereignty for its domestic laws in the face of all UN agreements. It doesn’t need to leave the agreement. In general the US, as the world dominant cultural, military and economic power, signs agreements to bind others, not themselves.